Originally Posted by REF 5

I think a lot of times pilots think pilots can make better pairings or the pairings that fit their situation. As I said before, pairings are a representation of the network. Rigs, duty day limitations, etc may help on the margins but in the end they reflect the network. I wouldn’t mind at all that SWAPA build the pairings but in the end, the outcomes may not be that different based on the current CBA. Averages have to put in place so all pilots, not just a certain base benefit from all the flying. AUS,BNA shouldn’t subsidize DEN or any other base with a 10% or 15% difference in pay(TFP). That’s not how a union works. Work rules should be the driver of that. Most other carriers that allow their union to build their pairings are network carriers. Which does not lend itself to productivity. That’s the nature of the network. A high p2p operation like SWA doesn’t lend itself to be the best of commutable trips on the other end. In my opinion, as the network evolves, so should our work rules to reflect that collectively for everyone.

As far as the chiefs speaking with the prophets. Please. They still don’t know anything. They know the next pizza party. Everything they are told is almost identical to what BJ says in public. Let me guess, we’re hiring, we may have a new fleet type in a few years, we’re building lounges, the initiatives are paying off, etc. They don’t know anything about commuting, the quality of pairings, when will bases get bigger or smaller(other than what’s on the schedule already). They talk to the prophets and it makes them feel important. How many NDA’s do they sign on a regular basis? Crew planning doesn’t consult with them on anything. They don’t have to. They shouldn’t. Their management. SWAPA has warts and pimples just like any other bargaining agent. But do really trust the chiefs over SWAPA? The ones that told you we call in sick too much or when they downsize a base(DEN) and give you a blank stare? Management keeps things to themselves because to be honest, they have to. When they must a piece of paper comes across the table. SWAPA doesn’t know much more but they definitely know more than the chiefs because our CBA requires it.

Originally Posted by flyguy81

As far as preventing 1 base from stealing from another.....we have that already in that average line values across bases have to be within 5 tfp (I believe....I'd have to double check). If the majority of people in one base don't commute....don't do a ton of 4 days....they'll end up in OT and the company will be paying premium or VDT for it. It'd be cheaper to create pairings and trips that people want to do (within reason...we're not getting 40 hr overnights in SXM). If SWAPA has access to the company pairing/line generating software....all they gotta do is feed in the flights from network planning and use crew planning's base manning to ensure proper rsv coverage. My regional did this 10 yrs ago...company had final say on whether they'd accept the union solution or not....obv we're a bit of a bigger animal than a 1500 pilot group but it can be done. I'm curious how much input the APA and ALPA have at the big 3.

As far as the Chiefs....mine has no reason to make up crap. He'll tell you flat out what he's been told or not been told....he really doesn't care what DAL thinks....he'll literally tell to use sick time as you see fit without issuing a 8 page dissertation on the Honda Ridgeline. Whether any of that info is an embellishment from DAL or not? We won't know until the press release hits, if it ever does. Some stuff tracks, some doesn't as DAL changes their mind, Boeing delays hit again, etc. Some info is better than nothing and SWAPA has been pretty quiet since Casey left.

Originally Posted by flyguy81

As far as preventing 1 base from stealing from another.....we have that already in that average line values across bases have to be within 5 tfp (I believe....I'd have to double check). If the majority of people in one base don't commute....don't do a ton of 4 days....they'll end up in OT and the company will be paying premium or VDT for it. It'd be cheaper to create pairings and trips that people want to do (within reason...we're not getting 40 hr overnights in SXM). If SWAPA has access to the company pairing/line generating software....all they gotta do is feed in the flights from network planning and use crew planning's base manning to ensure proper rsv coverage. My regional did this 10 yrs ago...company had final say on whether they'd accept the union solution or not....obv we're a bit of a bigger animal than a 1500 pilot group but it can be done. I'm curious how much input the APA and ALPA have at the big 3.

As far as the Chiefs....mine has no reason to make up crap. He'll tell you flat out what he's been told or not been told....he really doesn't care what DAL thinks....he'll literally tell to use sick time as you see fit without issuing a 8 page dissertation on the Honda Ridgeline. Whether any of that info is an embellishment from DAL or not? We won't know until the press release hits, if it ever does. Some stuff tracks, some doesn't as DAL changes their mind, Boeing delays hit again, etc. Some info is better than nothing and SWAPA has been pretty quiet since Casey left.

Originally Posted by REF 5

1. We already have limitations on 1,2,3,4 days in the CBA. Section 9H.4. Pretty straight forward.
2. Your regional probably worked for a network carrier. A lot easier to build pairings when intentionally bank flights. Trips probably are not as good but that is because of the nature of the network.
3, SWAPA could build pairings but like I said, in its current form, not much would change.
4. If you believe the Chiefs, then hey, have at it. When things don’t work out like displacements, bragging about sick calls because your commute sucks, don’t even ask for the rep. Since they have your best interests. SWAPA seems not have your interests at heart.
5. Just keep emailing crew planning and maybe they will implement all these ideas you have. Maybe even the chiefs can help. Maybe start your own scheduling committee. Call it the DEN scheduling committee. Subset of SRC. Maybe should email the chiefs to see what they think. SWAPA won’t even have to negotiate it. Kinda like a handshake. You know the company is a honest broker.

sarcasm off now. Nothing will change unless it's written in the CBA. You can criticize SWAPA for implementation time lines, which is legit but nothing in scheduling will change until put in writing. Any slight changes to scheduling can have a pretty big effect on QOL. Those need to be tested. Look at APL. Small change like that had a some effect across the board.

Originally Posted by REF 5

1. We already have limitations on 1,2,3,4 days in the CBA. Section 9H.4. Pretty straight forward.

Originally Posted by Cyio

My issue with this, and where I think we made the mistake, was allowing this to be a system-wide limitation instead of a per-base limitation. If I am wrong on that, I stand corrected, but the crux of the issue now is that bases that really don't have a need or desire for commuting 4 days are ending up with them due to poor contract language and the company finding loopholes. I actually dont disagree with anything you are saying, other than I take issue with how we worded it in the contract.

Originally Posted by Liberty

I am also super tired of 4-day trips distributed across many different lines. 4-days are horrible. I’m constantly told that commuters want them…okay, then why am I flying them?

Originally Posted by e6bpilot

I am also not a huge fan of flying 4 days, but they come in handy and as a pilot group, they greatly enhance the amount of cheddar that we collectively bring home. Here are my top 2 four day trip usages -

1. Vacation pulls (or any kind of nonfly pull) is generally greatly enhanced by 4 day pairings.
2. As a commuter, I fly quite a few open time 4 days. Nobody wants them, but I’ll gladly fly then for the extra pay and they regularly go PP or DT. 4 days for 55-60 tfp? Sign me up.

There are also some weird long TAFB trips that go places that pilots don’t mind going to and are built with deadheads or redeye legs. While I don’t often fly these, they seem popular when constructed correctly and one man’s trash is another man’s treasure around this place. The Hawaii redeyes with the last leg as a redeye or DH are still extremely popular.

Where we went wrong was adjusting APL and mandating turns and 2 days without putting guard rails on it. Now you have a ton of high blocking 4 days that nobody wants and turns and 2 days randomly thrown into lines full of 3 day pairings. There are still the same amount of pure turn lines as there used to be, probably less as a percentage of pilots. Meanwhile, as a commuter I commonly get a Saturday turn that I can’t get rid of and end up working it into an elitt situation.

I get it, our SAC guy management wannabe has a genius level IQ and is doing us all a favor, but this is the favor nobody asked for or wants.